|
Excalibur, you have the most selective eyes of anyone I have ever seen. Where does it say that the sarin gas was new. It specifically says:
soldiers found a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent in Baghdad, the military said Monday. The device, which partially detonated, was apparently a leftover from Saddam Hussein's arsenals
Leftover... IF you continue...
Rumsfeld cautioned that the sarin results were from a field test, which can be imperfect and more analysis needed to be done.
..
U.S. troops have announced the discovery of other chemical weapons before, only to see them disproved by later tests
..
The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it was possible the shell was an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s
..
Former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, speaking to the AP in Sweden, agreed the shell was likely a stray weapon scavenged from a dump and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles.
Numerous arsenals and weapons depots were looted in the turmoil following the collapse of the regime last April. Some depots are still only lightly guarded. Many of the materials used for roadside bombs were believed to have been looted.
How do you interpret this as good news for the Bush administration? Where does it say the sarin gas was new? Maybe I am wrong... after all it is late.. but the 8 ball says other wise.
|
|
|
More like what would it take for you to gain it?
Admit to there mistakes. Resign. Join evangelical rehab. Convert to Islam and move to Mecca.
|
Braavos36399 Posts
I was under the impression that the administration was genuinely looking for WMD, and now that they know there isn't any there, the last resort would be to plant evidence. I'm not saying this administration would plant evidence or that this weapon was planted, but the logic that "why would they plant it now" does not mean this find is authentic.
|
United States12243 Posts
On May 17 2004 23:46 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Excalibur, you have the most selective eyes of anyone I have ever seen. Where does it say that the sarin gas was new. It specifically says: Show nested quote +soldiers found a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent in Baghdad, the military said Monday. The device, which partially detonated, was apparently a leftover from Saddam Hussein's arsenals Leftover... IF you continue... Show nested quote +Rumsfeld cautioned that the sarin results were from a field test, which can be imperfect and more analysis needed to be done. .. Show nested quote +U.S. troops have announced the discovery of other chemical weapons before, only to see them disproved by later tests .. Show nested quote +The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it was possible the shell was an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s .. Show nested quote +Former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, speaking to the AP in Sweden, agreed the shell was likely a stray weapon scavenged from a dump and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles.
Numerous arsenals and weapons depots were looted in the turmoil following the collapse of the regime last April. Some depots are still only lightly guarded. Many of the materials used for roadside bombs were believed to have been looted. How do you interpret this as good news for the Bush administration? Where does it say the sarin gas was new? Maybe I am wrong... after all it is late.. but the 8 ball says other wise.
How is it new, you ask? Maybe because the event happened today? That's pretty new in my eyes.
Yes LEFTOVER FROM SADDAM'S ARSENALS. Exactly! Except it doesn't say WHEN. It could be from his last day in power to anytime after the Gulf War, at which point he started the sarin program. Either way, it's not like the mustard shell which was from before the gulf war most likely.
It is irrelevant what the former inspectors think because they're not on the scene right now. Besides that, it also says Kay, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile, although he didn't rule out that possibility.
So it's pointless to nitpick at the article because you and I both read it.
|
Canada5062 Posts
1. I have yet to see any credible evidence that the sarin find was fabricated. Given the mendacity of the current American administration, it's not surprising that many believe anything is possible.
2. I'm sure more "discoveries" will be conveniently announced as elections get closer (not necessarily fabricated - just timed). Look hard enough and no doubt even KRYPTONITE can be found in a country the size of Iraq.
3. Kerry doesn't stand a chance. And Americans (and the world) are in for more violent times. GL.
|
We both read it, but you greatly misinterpret it. This article is no differant than dozens of others in the weeks following the initial attack. We find some barrels, or drums, or some random scrap of metal, and then the media puts in big bold headlines "WMD FOUND". We then test it, and it comes up empty, which the media doesn't report with as much inthuasism. I know you are hoping this is your leaders smoking gun, but don't hold your breath.
Even if this was somehow a "new" "WMD" that happened to be made in some truck while UN inspectors were in Iraq, that does not change the fact that Bush lied. This issue is gettin fairly old for me. If every media outlet on the planet FedExed pictures of WMD's to my house, at this point, I don't think I would beleive it..
|
I thought Kerry was ahead in the polls (heard that here, not checked it reliably). I think it'll be close, from what I see now.
btw Psylo since your from MI too, you think Kerry has a chance here?
|
GL.
Hah, thanks 
|
United States12243 Posts
On May 18 2004 00:03 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
Even if this was somehow a "new" "WMD" that happened to be made in some truck while UN inspectors were in Iraq, that does not change the fact that Bush lied. This issue is gettin fairly old for me. If every media outlet on the planet FedExed pictures of WMD's to my house, at this point, I don't think I would beleive it..
Exactly. You hate Bush so much that you twist the truth that is not convenient for you to hear =( Give the guy a break.
|
I just hope the terrorists don't go back to where they found the shell, find others and use them correctly.
I know they wanted to get the story out but they shouldn't have told everybody (including the enemy) the location of the improvised device.
|
On May 18 2004 00:04 Servolisk wrote:
I thought Kerry was ahead in the polls (heard that here, not checked it reliably). I think it'll be close, from what I see now.
btw Psylo since your from MI too, you think Kerry has a chance here?
I think Kerry has a chance, definetly in Michigan. MI hasn't elected a republican in 20 years(Reagon) and I highlty doubt they will start with Bush. The media frenzy leading up to the election will decide it. You can expect many "hard hitting" stories coming out against both parties, and which ever the media decides to push the most will pick our winner. The loser of course, will be the american people, regardless of who wins...
|
United States12243 Posts
On May 18 2004 00:04 Servolisk wrote:
I thought Kerry was ahead in the polls (heard that here, not checked it reliably). I think it'll be close, from what I see now.
btw Psylo since your from MI too, you think Kerry has a chance here?
He's ahead in some states of course but it's not gonna be enough. Swing states are going to vote Republican on the issues this year. The average American is sick of gay marriage and socialized health care nonsense in the face of a war on terror.
|
Exactly. You hate Bush so much that you twist the truth that is not convenient for you to hear
Respect is earned, not given. Same goes for the lack there of, its a lesson I think you need to learn.
|
Canada5062 Posts
And for the people who don't understand why something would be announced TODAY as opposed to LAST YEAR:
1. This is an election year.
2. The vast majority of voters in the US have short-term memory only.
It's a simple principle. I knew governments timed the announcement of certain events and findings during an election year when I was 9-10 yrs old. If you still don't understand, then you should not be posting in political threads.
|
United States12243 Posts
On May 18 2004 00:08 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +On May 18 2004 00:04 Servolisk wrote:
I thought Kerry was ahead in the polls (heard that here, not checked it reliably). I think it'll be close, from what I see now.
btw Psylo since your from MI too, you think Kerry has a chance here? I think Kerry has a chance, definetly in Michigan. MI hasn't elected a republican in 20 years(Reagon) and I highlty doubt they will start with Bush. The media frenzy leading up to the election will decide it. You can expect many "hard hitting" stories coming out against both parties, and which ever the media decides to push the most will pick our winner. The loser of course, will be the american people, regardless of who wins...
Story time!
I lived in Michigan for 3 months. I moved there from California. It was ok until I lost my job and had to move back home. Almost everyone there is super liberal. I couldn't believe it. It was like San Francisco only more mainstream. One of the most liberal people I met there was my girlfriend at the time (go figure). We got into arguments on the Iraq war and Bush and gun control from time to time (which I always won haha). Anyway one of the funniest conversations I had with her was this, if memory serves:
Me: "You have a fundamental right to protect yourself and your family with a gun. What if an intruder comes into your house?"
Her: "Guns will just kill people."
Me: "Maybe, but most incidents like that are resolved without the person actually firing the gun. It's mostly about intimidation and deterrence."
Her: "You know what they should do with all the guns? Just take them all and burn them."
Me: "hahahaha. How are you gonna get the illegal guns from criminals?"
Her: (no answer)
|
On May 18 2004 00:10 mensrea wrote:
And for the people who don't understand why something would be announced TODAY as opposed to LAST YEAR:
1. This is an election year.
2. The vast majority of voters in the US have short-term memory only.
It's a simple principle. I knew governments timed the announcement of certain events and findings during an election year when I was 9-10 yrs old. If you still don't understand, then you should not be posting in political threads.
My dad is waiting for something huge to happen right before the election, something that would scare more then 50% of america into voting for bush. =(
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Bush won Michigan last time.
|
And I heard the Republican/Democrat vote switches very often here (just hear say, can't confirm).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
